🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”